In re Marriage of Arjmand, 2013 IL App (2d) 120639

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Arjmand, 2013 IL App (2d) 120639 (Ill. App. Ct. Oct. 28, 2013).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Masud M. Arjmand. Respondent‑Appellee: Muneeza R. Arjmand.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether a section 2‑1401 petition could vacate or otherwise set aside the marital settlement agreement (MSA) incorporated into a dissolution judgment on grounds of unconscionability, coercion, and fraudulent concealment of assets.
- Whether the parties’ property classifications in the MSA were binding where the agreement was found unconscionable.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court. The final judgment dissolving the marriage remained, but the trial court’s order vacating the MSA was upheld. Because the MSA was unconscionable, the parties’ agreed property classifications were not binding on the court.

4) Significant legal reasoning (short)
- The court relied on the extensive evidentiary hearing under 735 ILCS 5/2‑1401 that disclosed material nondisclosure and inconsistencies. Evidence showed petitioner had substantial Accenture "founder" share proceeds (sales during the marriage of about $8.56 million), multiple entity interests and real property, and tax returns/personal financial statements reflecting annual incomes and net worth far greater than petitioner’s prove‑up testimony. Contrasts between petitioner's testimony (minimizing income) and documentary evidence (large capital gains, dividends, higher reported income/net worth) supported findings of fraudulent concealment/misrepresentation. Several assets were omitted or mischaracterized in the MSA. The trial court found the division unfair/unconscionable and that the MSA had been procured under circumstances (including one party proceeding pro se at prove‑up) that justified vacatur under 2‑1401 principles. Because the agreement was unconscionable, its allocative characterizations of marital vs. nonmarital property could not bind the court.

5) Practice implications (brief, for attorneys)
- Ensure thorough, documented financial disclosure before a prove‑up: tax returns, brokerage statements, stock grants/vesting history, sale proceeds, K‑1s, entity ownership documents and debt schedules.
- Do not conduct a final prove‑up when one party is unrepresented without confirming informed waiver and complete disclosure. Consider continuance if material documents are missing.
- In drafting MSAs: include detailed schedules of assets/liabilities, valuation methodology, acknowledgments of full disclosure supported by exhibits/affidavits, and express allocation language tied to documentary evidence.
- Beware that courts will vacate agreements that conceal material assets or evidence coercion; property classifications in an unconscionable agreement will not bind the court.
- On appeal, factual findings from a full evidentiary 2‑1401 hearing receive substantial deference; ensure a robust trial record.